With his job approval numbers plummeting below 40%, and the citizens of Emerald City now on the verge of civil war, Boss Godfrey made a stunning announcement on Saturday, demonstrating, much to our surprise, that he's not entirely devoid of political sense. In his
OGDEN — The city won’t sell Mount Ogden Golf Course to pave the way for a gondola and resort project, Mayor Matthew Godfrey said Saturday.The ever-elusive Chris Peterson, who has been unavailable for comment for the last 10 months, did manage to crawl out from under whatever rock he's been hiding under to register to Mr. Schwebke his "disappointment." We suppose we would be a mite disappointed too, if we were to learn that our bestest mayoral buddy had unilaterally decided to throw us overboard, with a sudden announcement that he didn't intend to deliver on our hard-plotted and schemed $200 million real estate windfall.
Godfrey told the Standard-Examiner he believes the project may still be possible, but added developer Chris Peterson, who has been working on a proposal for more than a year, would have to determine how it could be funded.
"It doesn’t mean the project will stop from moving forward," Godfrey said. "It may happen, but it will require Chris to go back to the drawing board."
Godfrey said concerns from residents who fear the city’s trail system in the foothills along the east bench would be adversely affected persuaded him not to sell Mount Ogden Golf Course.
Many of those residents offered to support the gondola resort project if the city retained ownership of the golf course, Godfrey said.
"This is a great way to compromise to help people feel better about the project," he said of his decision not to sell the course.
Godfrey said he has also determined there isn’t excess land at the golf course to accommodate a 200-home subdivision that Peterson wants to build on some of the property.
"I came to the conclusion we need all the existing area (that Peterson wanted to build homes on) for the golf course," he said.
Councilman Safsten, who at least had the good sense to avoid the humiliation of being ousted from his municipal ward 4 council seat (by taking himself out of contention for re-election in the upcoming November election,) nevertheless offers this boneheaded comment, adding new meaning to the term "political lame duck":
City Councilman Rick Safsten wonders, without the gondola resort proposal on the horizon, what will be Ogden’s next big economic development project? “This is the worst possible time to stop the momentum and take a breather,” he said.We extend to lame duck city councilman Mr. Safsten our profound sympathy for this unfortunate development, which deprives the good comrade of the opportunity to stick it to the citizens of Emerald City this one last time.
Notably, the Geiger boys, who are normally available to squawk into whatever microphone is placed in front of their noses 24 hours a day, were inexplicably unavailable when Scott Schwebke called for comments. Perhaps Mr. Schwebke forgot to look for them at the footings of the nearest tall bridge. Saturday's news most surely dampened the spirits of those remaining few who still linger in the gondolist cult camp.
We'll avoid the near-irresistible compulsion to wax on with our further analysis; and will instead now turn the floor over to you, our gentle readers.
Before we do however, we'll just volunteer one final closing comment:
The November election can't come fast enough for us. Happy days will soon be with us, once the lumpencitizens of Emerald City have snatched the opportunity to install a new government -- composed of actual adults.
107 comments:
The Geiger boys couldn't be found for comment?
Puhleeze! This has Geigers', Allens', Peterson and all the other 'advisors' fingerprints staining this announcement!
This isn't a done deal. The upright Boy Scout (apologies to you, boys), mayor has told us that "this doesn't mean this will stop the project from moving forward....it may happen, but it will require Chris to go back to the drawingboard."
Is that scary enuf? There is no promise that the golf course and parklands are safe from these predators.
Just the opposite. This twerp of a mayor (come and get me for that one Geiger boys) is a sneak, liar (you heard me right, Ed), egotistical opportunist who hasn't the capacity for shame.
"Don't trust. Always Verify".
I hope the Council will not let down its collective guard. We already know that Safsten will not play nice with the rest of the Council...and Stephenson has always played in Godfrey's sandbox, so the other five will have to step up and serve the citizens by SAFEguarding this jewel.
Council, follow Dave Smith's advice. Follow state law. Vote in the amendment that Jeske brought you some time ago to take back your own authority,
If you'd done this when first presented..Bootjack would not have HIjacked that Wall Ave property from under everyone's noses but Godfrey's and Harmer's.
Peterson hasn't gone away. He shows up to take what he wants...he just isn't 'available' for scrutiny. He and Ellison know exactly what they're doing...and lilliputian Godfrey is their lackey frontman. Geigers', et al just keep sweeping the red carpet for Peterson's triumphant return to "save dying Mount Ogden" and our fair city.
The gondola drowned in its own puke a long time ago, and Godfrey just figured out that's why Peterson doesn't return his calls anymore, so he's trying to take credit for killing it. Classic CYA Political behavior: see which way things are going, jump in front, take credit.
Godfrey Joins Naysayers!
Well, whoda thunk it? Ogden's very own Matthew Godfrey is a naysayer! And he offered no alternative, no other ideas. He just said "no" to the park sale to fund a gondola and mountain resort. Yup. Naysayer all the way now.
[Note to Mayor Godfrey: If you would like a Smart Growth Ogden sign for you lawn, please let me know. I can get one to you within hours.]
Mr. Schwebke's story is full of tasty details. The Mayor, who held all those by invitation only dog-and-pony shows to tout the park sale to build the gondola and resort plan, and derided those who dared to simply raise questions about its wisdom, now, nearly two years later, has decided to actually look at the facts [he tells us] and he concludes that there wasn't enough room to build what Mr. Peterson wanted to build anyway, and that in any case, there was no surplus land there anyway.
[Note to the mayor: here's an idea. Next time, how about doing the research first before you put the city through two years of turmoil shooting from the hip touting a project you now tell us was never feasible as conceived in the first place. Take notes. Write it down: research first, advocacy second.]
The Mayor's polling on the election impact of the park sale to his crony scheme much have been blood curdling. [How Mr. Schwebke kept a straight face when Hizzonah told him he was abandoning the park sale because of citizen concern over loss of trail access escapes me.]
As for Mr. Safsten's comment: Rick Safsten wonders, without the gondola resort proposal on the horizon, what will be Ogden’s next big economic development project? “This is the worst possible time to stop the momentum and take a breather,” he said. Well, Councilman, two things come immediately to mind:
(a)The city already has under way another huge project, beyond the Junction. The River Project. The first of three phases is just barely beginning. That hardly constitutes "stopping" or "doing nothing." And
(b) SGO has published a great deal, on its website and via members letters, op eds, to the paper regarding how rail transit... in our case trolley transit... has proven to be a huge generator of business and residential investment in cities. The trolley line in Portland, for example, drew more than two billion dollars in trackside investment from private investors. Yes, Councilman, billion... with a B. Other cities have gotten similar results. So the alternate plan... recommended by the Wasatch Front Regional Council for Ogden years ago now... is out there. The city could and should have moved on it two years ago. But the Mayor impeded all progress in that direction in order to protect, he thought, his sell the park to his crony to build a gondola plan. Two years wasted. Perhaps, Councilman, now is the time to begin moving the city forward on the trolley "alternatives study" that should have begun long ago. It would be a nice legacy to leave behind you.
Can we trust Hizzonah's deathbed [in election terms] conversion? Ah... I think Mr. Vause, quoted in the article, put it as charitably as it could at this point be put: He is "cautiously optimistic" that the Mayor will keep his word on this. I think that's just about right. Cautiously optimistic.
One caveat about the article. Mr. Schwebke wrote that "a 2006 feasibility study commissioned by the city" concluded that the gondonla/gondola/land sale to the mayor's crony/resort scheme would generate $89 million in tax revenues over a decade. Sorry, Mr. Schwebke but the study you refer to was not a feasibility study. As the consultants who did the study were very careful to make clear in their introduction to it.
But on the whole, a wonderful story, a grand result, and cause for celebration.
Man, his polling on this must have been truly bloodcurdling.
Matthew Godfrey a naysayer. Whoda thunk it?
Don't miss this story in the SL Trib this morning either. Link here.
The headline on the story is Companies Flocking to Revitalized Ogden.
The whole story is worth reading, but this in particular caught my eye. The reporters ask Mike Dowse, head of Amer Sports, why his company chose to locate in Ogden, rather than in SLC [which laid on a full court press to lure Amer there]. Here's what he said:
Mike Dowse, president of Amer Sports, concedes that the contest between Salt Lake City and Ogden was close.
"At the end, there were two things: The cost structure for Ogden is still a fair amount lower than for Salt Lake . . . and it is right on the edge of the mountains," he says.
The cost issue was twofold. Not only could the company find reasonably priced space in the renovated American Can campus, Dowse says, but also its employees could "find homes they can afford."
Salt Lake City dangled redevelopment funding for downtown's Boston Building, Patrick Dry Goods Building and part of Arrow Press Square - all to no avail.
Besides state incentives and a $4 million parking garage next to the historical building Amer wanted, Ogden offered Amer naming rights for what became the Salomon Center.
Dowse says that gesture was not pivotal, but "it was definitely a contributing factor."
Notice, not a single mention of gondolas. Not one. Lower business costs, affordable housing, proximity to mountain terrain, yes. Gondolas, no.
Not exactly news to anyone actually familiar with the situation, but substantial different from what has been the Godfrey/Geiger party line up until this very morning.
Good ink for Ogden. Worth reading.
Stick a fork in Matthew Godfrey. He's done.
If anybody had any lingering illusions that Godfrey has the slightest clue what he's doing, today's story resolves all doubt:
Godfrey is plainly an idiot.
I think Godfrey owes the whole community an apology, something he can do by withdrawing from the mayoral race.
It will be interesting to see whether Godfrey files as a candidate during the next week.
I don't care how much money his developer friends have available to fund his campaign.
No amount of money can revive a political dead man.
Although I wouldn't have chosen the same words, I think "amused" pretty much nailed it. Peterson's scheme was never feasible to begin with--technically, economically, or politically.
But the mayor's announcement is still both welcome and significant. Many of us have feared that he would sell the golf course and adjacent park land to Peterson even without any guarantee that the rest of the project would ever happen. Now it will be much harder for him to do that. Not impossible--he's broken campaign promises before--but much harder. I agree that now is the time for the Council to make it harder still, by tightening up the ordinance that governs sale of city property. (Just how tight they can make it is a matter for the lawyers to work out.)
I also think we should all give the mayor some credit for listening to the voters and admitting he was wrong about something. It must have been hard for him.
Meanwhile, I hope Councilman Safsten is appropriately embarassed upon reading his own words in the paper this morning. Curmudgeon's response was right on. I would only add that the accumulated effect of many smaller positive changes will be much more significant for Ogden than any actual or proposed mega-projects.
Of course, the mayor's announcement leaves many important questions unanswered. Would he still consider selling Peterson a smaller amount of city-owned park land? Is he still going to try to push for the urban gondola, and if so, how would it be funded? What other sacrifices might the mayor consider, in order to advance the gondola or his other agendas?
Yes, Dan, it is quite possible that Godfey has not closed the door on his vision.
We must remain vigilant. Frankly, this announcement has "politically expedient" written all over it.
And Schwebke STILL managed to drag out his outdated file that Peterson's plan includes land from WSU.
Wake up, Scott, ferpetesake! WSU said "NO"..and THAT was supposed to be the death knell for the land grab, Remember?
Now these two still think they'll lay on hands and continue with a new 'plan from the drawingboard' of Peterson and Ellison.
That 300 caller poll from the little mayor surely showed 279 AGAINST..21 FOM's and family members FOR.
Give it up, Matt. We ALL see your nekkidness now.
I don't trust Godfrey as far as I could throw him.
He told the Sierra Club members just before the last election (see Sierra Club web page, Oct 03), when he was questioned, that he would not support changing the slope requirements on the east bench, something that he is currently trying to push through the planning commission and the city council to allow for the Peterson Development.
He further said that he would not support a gondola or other developed recreation facility on the Wasatch Mountains above Ogden unless 1) It is positive for the environment, 2) It is desired by the people of Ogden, 3) It is a significant economic engine for downtown and 4) It does not have a significant negative impact on neighborhoods. Obviously conditions 1, 2 and 4 are all negative to the environment, to what the people of Ogden want, and to the neighborhoods. Number 3 is not answerable at this time but what I have seen to this point about the plans would suggest that the answer to that condition is also negative.
Once he was re-elected, he then immediately changed his story on ALL of these positions. HE WILL DO IT AGAIN.
He has left plenty enough loopholes in how he said things in his statement to allow himself the room to go back on what he has stated. He has not said that he has abandoned the project but simply that he won’t sell the golf course (he could change his position on this just as he did after the last election). He has not said that he won’t sell any of the other open space land surrounding the golf course nor has he specified what part of the gondola project (urban or mountain) that he won’t pursue. You could drive a truck through what he has not stated.
I think this is just another political maneuver to get re-elected.
If he is really serious this time (which I doubt) and wants the people of Ogden to believe him then he will need to prove it, by passing before the next election (not just suggesting) a protective moratorium or dedication the golf course and open space as a perpetual parkland for the residents of Ogden and that document should state that the land is not to be developed in whole or in part, ever. I'm confident that if he proposed such a document to the city council that they would sign it in a heart beat. That would be the only way that I would believe that he is not just trying to side step a political issue that he knows will cost him the election.
After the last election, where nothing was said about this scheme until Godfrey was re-elected and it sprang to life as something he'd obviously been planning (or is that plotting?) beforehand, I don't trust him for an instant.
Two phrases come to mind:
"Fool me once shame on me... etc." (we all know the end of that unless your name is GW Bush);
and
"You knew I was a snake when you brought me in."
While I realize he could sell the golf course from under us unless the Council gets on the ball and takes back their powers, I'm still outraged and offended by his assumption that OUR park and golf course are HIS to sell.
Political expediency lasts only until election day when it comes to slime like this. Councilmembers, please end this limbo and take back your power over the sale of city property and land.
If you want to get a real feel for lying little matty's 180, and his sincerity, lets see if he and gregory peccary montgomery do a couple of things that any honest observer will say needs doing.
1. Rescind that silly Mu ordinance(originally crafted by Ellison) as the intended purpose, no longer is needed, according to pinnoccio himself. This ordinance was crafted by the lawyer of the wouldbe developer, and in no way is as good for this city, as it should be.
2. Establish a rock solid prohibition on building on steep slopes. Protect those foothills. In fact lets only involve the city in developement in cases of LONG term benefit to future generations.
On that note, the tree hugger in me has a pertainent observation I wish to convey at this juncture. Nothing this mayor has done provides any lasting benefit for future generations. Dan, please excuse me for delving into the metaphysical just this one time.
How's this for a vision? (note, I make no claims as to clairvoyancy, I have no visionary credentials and possess no crystal balls, tea leaves(other than those for drinking)rabbits feet or direct line to any higher authority). Imagine if you can, the river parkway extending all the way to West Haven. A real, wide, grassy corridor complete with walking and bicycle trails. Wide enough to protect the riparian corridor and provide the affore mentioned with a true wildlife corridor as well. That has the potential to last forever, it would enhance this city for all future generations and certainly outlast anything planned or started in the someday River project. It is deffinately not too late, they are currently digging 1 hole, way to close to the river. Move it back, and keep anything else, as far as future development, away from the riverbanks. This should have been done years ago. It also would have people lining up to buy and develope, on their own dime, not the city's.
Not responsible for any psychological damage or any resulting physical damage that could come from unsuppervized use of meta physics.
Everyone, please read the Tribune article that Curmudgeon has linked above. It takes a very thorough look at why outdoor companies are locating in Utah, and at how Ogden fits into the bigger picture along with Salt Lake City and Park City.
The article includes quotes from Metcalf, Dowse, and Geiger, as well as Godfrey, Patterson, Hardman, and a couple of folks in Salt Lake who are involved in recruiting businesses to Utah.
I find it notable that most of these people emphasize the synergy between Ogden and the rest of northern Utah. According to Metcalf, "This isn't an Ogden vs. Salt Lake vs. Park City thing, but a Utah thing." Geiger says that "Ogden's revival is an asset to [Salt Lake], not a competitor."
But Godfrey says that the greater Wasatch Front is "too big" to be a center for recreation, and that "Salt Lake cannot compete with what Ogden has."
Maybe he feels like he has to say that, since he's the mayor of Ogden. But I like to think that we'd all be better off if our mayor were more of a team player.
Godfrey's deceitful dealings are not limited to just the golf course and open space issues; he has hidden several financial dealings of the city relative to our true indebtedness and fund transfers between departments of the city, he has sold city property without city council involvement which is contrary to city law, he has concealed expenditure of the city which should have been approved before the money was spent, and he has derailed several positive opportunities for the city to further his agenda (an example being mass transit funding). This is not what we the residents expected from a person that we elected to put our best interests in front of personal gain and glory.
Not to mention that he has neglected the city infrastructure, he has diminished the quality of services that a city is expected to provide to its residents and diverted nearly a third of our city budget to pursue his business development activities (clearly in excess of other cities that spend on average less that 10% of their budget for these purposes). This mayor will go down in city history as the worst mayor that the city ever had.
Has he done some good, yes, but not as many good things as bad things. Too many of the things that he’s gone won’t show up for a couple of years when we have to start paying for his visions. Under performing single use assets, excess debt, leveraged assets, inconsistent and incompatible business plans just to names a few.
Think of everything that this mayor has cost the residents and what they will be paying for in the future, not just his yet to be accomplished FUBR’d visions when it comes to the election.
Bill C:
The MU ordinance was touted by the Administration not just as a Peterson-needed revision, but also as one suitable for the various stages of the River project. Without getting into the merits and demerits of the ordinance [on which Dan is far better versed than I am], I merely want to point out that the fact that the mythical "Peterson Proposal" has gone belly up does not remove, from the administration's and Council's POV, the rationale for the new MU ordinance.
As for the Sensitive Area Overlay Ordinance revision, I'd still like the PC and Council to look into what the PC ultimately recommended: Ogden's creating a Foothills Residential Zone, on the model of Salt Lake City's, as a way to deal with the matter of slope restrictions and building density in the foothills.
Let me reiterate my position: I vote for PIPE. At 8am and 6pm, the water barely drizzles out my kitchen faucet, and I've noticed several sewer laterals in my hood being replaced. Believe me folks, the quality of your lives is directly correlated to the quality of the PIPE IN THE STREET. You will not give a DAMN about the high adventure rec center when your toilets don't flush and the water filling your washing machines stains your clothes.
A vote for AMY is a vote for PIPE. Amy is the only prescient candidate on this issue.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE.
-Curt Geiger
I find it comical that local oaf Rick Safsten has something to say about the sale of 175 acres of prime public land to the Squirrel Patrol: You are a clown, and don't you ever forget it
DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO GO into complacency paralysis about this latest Godfrey maneuver.
This is a political ploy and not worth the space it takes to print.
Godfrey has never told the straight truth about any of his hallucinations.
I will believe he has truly had a "Come to Jesus" meeting only after he decides to tell the truth about the Ogden Community Foundation.
We are entitled to a detailed explanation of the deed transfer dated December 29, 2006 signed by Curt Geiger, President of Riverside Technology Non-Profit Foundation, of the American Can property to the Ogden Community Foundation. Especially since there was never an official board meeting making Mr. Geiger the President of the Riverside Technology Non-Profit Foundation that day and the prior president had not submitted his resignation to their Board.
And how about an explanation for what happened to the $3 million dollars that the Ogden Community Foundation promptly received for the American Can property by selling it to the developer from Colorado, Jon Pedde?
After repeated attempts to get information about and names of Board Members of the Ogden Community Foundation from John Patterson and Godfrey and having been consistently stonewalled with no information nor even a response to my requests after 4 months I know I am not about to believe a word Godfrey says.
The Ogden Community Foundation was run out of the Mayor's office from the time it was started. It is legally a part of Ogden City government because it has been operated by Ogden City employees and the Mayor from day one.
Remember the old adage - An old dog and even a 30-something old dog never change their spots.
I think that the entire community would agree that now that the mayor has had a "death bed experience," strangely timed to coincide with my letter to the council and the receipt of some pre-election polling data, that now there should be NO FURTHER OPPOSITION to securing the golf course and all other city bench property for our frightened citizens. City Council, now the mayor should not oppose your vote to regain your legal power to approve land sales and you resolution to not sell the golf course or other city bench property!
So as far as what the council must do, THIS CHANGES NOTHING. The council must restore its legal authority to approval all land sales, and must pass the resolution regarding preserving the golf course and surrounding land now, and I respectfully ask they take this prime opportunity to do that. Please, do it now.
Curm, yes the admin. and Council felt that they needed a mu ordinance. Based on input from the admin. The whole issue was driven thru an admin. interpretation, like everything else involved in the River developement. The ordinance was crafted and the urgency expressed for the land grab, not the river project. The silly thing had to be rearranged, reworded and all kinds of other changes added due to public input and a couple of planning commissioners that weren't just rubber stamps for pinnoccio. What the wound up with is lame as it will prohibit any one other than a super financed developer from participation. Eliminates any small neighborhood MU developement,which is really where Ogden could benefit the most. Their intention for mixed use is like anything else thatseeps out of godfrey's brain, larger than needed , totaly controling , not flexible at all with so many hoops to jump thru you need a team of Brooklyn lawyers just to gain approval, after having an art professor spend the summer making a cardboard fully scaled miniture model for montgomery's enjoyment. Joke, that what the MU turned into. Simply because lying little matty's staff personel have been indoctrined that any thing done under this idiotic administration must be the most,biggest, bestest, unique thing in the world. Like potato nose said it, of the URBAN GONDOLA.
As so many have noted, the mayor ran a Trojan Horse campaign last time he ran, where he said one thing knowing he would do another after elected.
So we've seen this before. The sale of the golf course and other bench land is, and will still be, THE ELECTION ISSUE for Ogden this fall. All the mayor is doing is trying to take the issue off the stage. Mike Vause, Heaven help you, you are so naive.
If you meant it Matt, you'd write it into the law. But we all know you won't.
Folks, it costs $25 to put your name on the ballot at the city recorder's office to run for mayor or city council. They are paying positions (although the city council job doesn’t pay a lot.) But if you win, remember, the city council sets policy, law, everything - YOU WILL BE IN CHARGE! Please, if you want to preserve our quality of life and improve on our precious assets, run. It only costs $25 to try.
If you've ever thought about it, there will never be a more important time to run. Take $25, and fill out a simple form to put you name on the ballot. You will need to do it by 5:00 PM on July 16th.
Here and herehere are some links. It really is just that easy. As a minimum, you’ll get to share your vision of our city, and you might even win.
If you're concerned about Godfrey selling our best assets, about all the debt, about the cronyism, about all the rest of it, run, and then you will be the one calling the shots. We need you to do this.
Curm, the short version reads as follows. This was about control and ego. Nothing flexible or pragmatic. The byproduc is because this administration desires total control from concept thru out and thy are insistent on WHO gets to participate. JOKE, CROOKED JOKE.
We'll call it SAV for short,
SAV (self appointed visionary).
Tell one tell all, VOTE.
Hay Danny,
So are you going to put up and run for the City council or are you just going to complain.
Hi, Ha Ha.
Who is complaining?
I'm providing information to my fellow citizens and neighbors, any one of which would make a better elected official than some of the ones we have now.
What good are you doing? Take $25 and give it whirl.
Wow!!
"Godfrey said concerns from residents who fear the city’s trail system in the foothills along the east bench would be adversely affected persuaded him not to sell Mount Ogden Golf Course."
It must be election time again. I hope the people of Ogden don't have short term memory - Godfrey seems to always through out some flip flop like this when his neck is on the line. Then give it a couple of months (if he wins) and he will be right back on "sell the park" track again - Mark my words!
He honestly can't believe the people of Ogden are that foolish can he? But of course, in his world they are!
I also liked the comment that Godfrey determined that there wasn't enough excess land at the golf course to accomodate a 200 home subdivision that Peterson wants to build.
What happened to the 400 (sometimes mentioned 750) homes he wanted to build around a newly designed golf course that Peterson was going to own?
What's this 200 home project, yet another option (secret plan) between Godfrey and Peterson?
First I ever heard of it.
Seemed to me that all Peterson really wanted to do was to build homes in the first place. This newest revelation by Godfrey kind of validates that. It also shows that Godfrey was entertaining another crony deal without letting the rest of the city or city council in on his dealings. All this from the guy that just chastized the council for not communicating.
This has never been about Malan Basin, any sound business man knew that, this was about a land grab, period. Godfrey is such a putz.
Remember to vote for anyone other than Godfrey.
One more observation of somewhat dubious distinction, lying little matty all ready has his gondola to nowhere. He just doesn't have any poles or cables. It's next to impossible for him to deny his 100% commitment to Peterson's scam, as he purchased last year, with city funds, not 1, but 2 used gondola cars. I suggest he makes use of them in the remaining short time he'll be occupying the 9th floor. Maybe he can get Jeff Lowe to rig up some used climbing rope stretching from matty's 9th floor window to potato nose's office accross the street. They can put a hand crank on both sides,one operated by short deck bobby, the other by Patterson or Montgomery, and pinnoccio and potato nose can ride back and forth for a couple of months and declare to each other, " it was well worth it".
Truely the GONDOLA TO NOWHERE.
proof:
I'm assuming that the 200 homes include just the ones that would be built on property now owned by the city. The other 200 (or so) would have been built on the WSU land.
What really confused me about the article was Godfrey's statement that Peterson could build homes on some of the 1440 acres that he already owns. Nearly all of that property is far too steep to develop, and most of the exceptions are narrow mountain ridges and valleys that would be prohibitively expensive to access. The only other exception is a small patch of bench land on the south side of the mouth of Waterfall Canyon. But even this could hold only a handful of houses, and accessing it would require a very destructive road across city park land.
On the other hand, the direct quote from Godfrey mentions only "different areas," not necessarily owned by Peterson already. Godfrey could be talking about the WSU land (which he doesn't seem to have given up on), and/or the 36 acres inside the city limits that are still owned by the Rasmussens. Those 36 acres span the mouth of Waterfall Canyon, west of Peterson's property and east of the Mt. Ogden exercise trail. Much of this property, but not all, is also too steep to develop.
I'd also like to add my interpretation to short deck bobby's and Blake Fowers' (who's this idiot) position on the potentially misused $900,000.00 state grant for the HIGH TECH CENTER, it matters not, right or wrong, we got and spent it, your an enemy sympathizer to even suggest we explore the possibility.
This reflects the true moral of pinnocio's and potato nose's minions.
dan s.
I'm assuming that the mayor was referring to the open space land that the city owns but is not now part of the golf course.
What is it, 50 acres or so?
I spent an hour with the mayor at one of his sales pitch roundtables and some personal time afterwards where I attempted to explain to him, through the visual of his own maps, how impossible the whole thing would be.
He insisted his experts were solidly on board. I pointed out the fallacy of dropping off gondola passengers at the only possible terminus and that it was simply too challenging for Mom, Pop, and Kids.
I pointed out the nonsensical 4000'+ of extremely dangerous out of bounds terrain that would not allow folks to ski in and out of WSU.
I pointed out the benefits of TOD and the inappropriate deployment of an urban gondola over 4.5 miles of residential that calls for a streetcar instead.
I pointed out all this and more and was dismissed as having been influenced by the wrong crowd. We have been called naysayers as recently as last month I believe. I don't take well to being called a naysayer when I take every opportunity to find the constructive and involve all parties. I do not believe in winners and losers. It's everyone wins or everyone loses.
Mayor, you owe us all a fat apology and then we may decide if we still like you. You decided you did not like us a long time back and it is our turn to either give you the boot or allow you to live in peace in our fine community, Parklands intact. You guys held us hostage for nearly 2 years. Nearly my full tenure as an ogden resident. You hoodwinked me as a recent newcomer assuming you had done your homework when in fact you had never consulted a single expert. You ignored the broad expertise of people who have lived here since before you were born and people who know these mountains and foothills far better than you or Peterson. You have disgraced Ogden with this goofiest of all lamebrain plans. You need to serve some penance, my man. I think you need to be turned out to pasture for a decade or two where you can do no more harm to communities and the environment.
proof,
The city's adjoining land, east and south of the golf course, totals 60 acres. Much of it is undevelopable because of faults and slope angles, but it does include some prime real estate up on the Bonneville shoreline, between Strong's Canyon and Waterfall Canyon. As you head north on the shoreline trail from Strong's, you cross from the city's land onto the Rasumssens', and then onto Peterson's as the trail bends eastward and crosses the city limits.
Well, I guess it's not very clear without a map. But the point is that with this chunk of city property plus some from the Rasmussens and a bit that he already owns, Peterson could put in a nice subdivision with a few dozen very expensive homes. Not enough to finance a resort in Malan's Basin, but enough to be worth fighting for if he thinks he can get it.
We definitely need to pin down the mayor over whether this bench land is still on the table.
So is anyone aware of the two and I said 2 gondola poles and the two gondola cars that godfrey has already purchased. How about the piece of parking lot in the parking for the commuter rail that is still bare for the poles. Tell if this guy should not be trusted.
When it comes time to vote for anyone else besides godfrey, vote Rep. Neil Hansen because he is NOT GODFREY.
You heard that first here.
Remember this take a look, did hansen go, what about this?
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6325425
It sounds like Godfrey needs a Neil Hansen for Mayor sign, to boost his property value too.
Now the Mayor flip floped on from we live in a Republic. Now its a Democracy.
City Councilman Rick Safsten wonders, without the gondola resort proposal on the horizon, what will be Ogden’s next big economic development project? “This is the worst possible time to stop the momentum and take a breather,” he said.
I'm glad that saften is taken a breather or we as taxpayers will be gasping for air and there will not be a breather.
What about the tyrant's remarks that "many of those residents offered to SUPPORT THE GONDOLA PROJECT IF THE CITY RETAINED OWNERSHIP OF THE GOLF COURSE", (SAID GODFREY).
Hmmm....is this reminiscent of the lackey who approached the firemen with a deal..."you support the gondola and you'll get the firefighters you need"???
What bribery...what a liar.
Godfrey...names names here, little guy. Just who are those "many" who offered to support your goofy gondola vision?
Council..and we know you read this blog...get busy. Do what we're begging you to do and what Dave Smith articulated so well in his email to you and that each of us "signs on".
Don't listen to Bill Cook, Gary Williams or any other feeder at the public trough. You know you can take back your authority to have all land sales go through the Council. And a GOOD atty will tell you you CAN place our parklands in safekeeping in perpetuity.
We hope you can see the deceitfulness of this sneak.
He is a predator of the first order attempting to hide in sheep's clothing.
Homicides: ZERO, so far in Ogden,
Unbelievable when we read of so many gang related shootings, stabbings, fights, and drug related crimes.
Either the thugs can't shoot straight, or their victims cross over into Davis County to die.
shaking my head-
Maybe we ought to give some credit to the OCP. I know some of it's luck, but they are good and getting better. Of course, you knew this would segue to the merits of the lovely AMY WICKS who's got the BACK of the OCP. She sticks up for them and for the firefighters, and for PIPE. You may all think I'm crazy, but it's like, when you're thirsty and being robbed, it's hard to be concerned about ridin waves. First things first, folks. Cops and PIPE.
If that nimrod beats Amy we are one down and gettin thirstier.
Shaking:
Not sure what OCP means, but generally I think Amylover has a good point: some of the credit has to go to the Ogden Police Department [and, yes, to Chief Greiner]. We are all --- myself included --- quick enough to assign blame when the crime stats look bad. We have to be, seems to me, as willing to assign credit when they turn around and start looking better. I found the zero homicide number surprising and very encouraging. Kudoes to the SE for bringing the number to us, and to the effective policing [crime prevention as well as crime control] that helped it happen.
If lying little matty's Sunday headline about some 180 turn around regaurding the golf course and trail heads is true, can't we expect him now to go full throtle on the street car from downtown to WSU? can we expect his boys to use that $250.000.oo bridge to nowhere type cash towards that end?
Page 1 of today's SE discusses what will happen to now-vacated school buildings, one of which might be turned into a social services center. It would depend if the district receives a $6 million federal grant from the US Department of Education.
Funding agencies like to see that money is used for its intended purpose. Let's hope that the misuse of the $9 million granted to Ogden for the high-tech center at the Can Company doesn't endanger our getting this money.
Let's also hope that if we get the $6M, that it's not used for some completely different purpose.
ALL credit for crime fighting and lower stats go to our selfless and brave OPD. What is OCP??
However, we DO seem to have an inordinate number of shootings, stabbings, drug dealings, etc in Ogden! So, lighten up.
That was a bit of irony AND lightheartedness.
Sheesh!!
Ogdenlover,
That was 900,000, (thousand) dollars of misappropriated funds that Ogden owes back to the state!
Ogdenlover,
Read the same story. I have a different thought about those underutilized schools that I'd like Neil Hanson to think about.
If Ogden is to prosper again it will need to revitalize it's inner city. For that to happen we will need home owners (families) to move into that part of the city.
For that to happen we will need land to build schools on or use existing schools.
Question, should we be holding onto those schools for the future use by the city? If we were to sell them now, we'd only be getting pennies on the dollars and would in the future pay alot more for land and have to build new schools. Should the city keep the land for that purpose at a minimum?
If we want to plan for the future, maybe the best thing that we could do is to retain those schools.
I'm a little fuzzy on your points, Just Thinking?
What is your ultimate point about holding onto the schools?
To make apt bldgs?
To have a school for unwed mothers? They now attend WA high school, but that school is full of other students who have mild to severe behaviorial and academic problems.
Would it be a good or not so good idea to have a school for mothers- to- be that takes them out of the environment that helped put them in their present predicament? They need to be taught the basic 3 R's, and other coping skills.
Social workers with a bent for ADOPTION and for helping these girls envision a full life for themselves and an unselfish desire of a FAMILY for their babies would benefit them and our society.
I'm jest wonderin
Something to think about and I wonder if a police officer shoots and kills someone, is that still not a shooting related death. What about the guy that was shoot for robbing the store on 29th and wash.?
Sharon:
You wrote: That was 900,000, (thousand) dollars of misappropriated funds that Ogden owes back to the state!
Unless I missed some recent news, to date, the state has not asked for the money back, and the only state agency to issue any kind of opinion on the matter at all, has said the city complied sufficiently with the terms of the grant that it need not return the money, that the money was not misappropriated. You may disagree with that opinion, of course, as you clearly do, but I don't think it's accurate at this point to say the city "owes the money back" to the state.
Unless there was a news story I missed.
Greiner the Whiner:
You're playing word games, I think. The news item referred to homicides, not "shooting related deaths." Big difference.
Bill:
On what we might now expect from the Mayor, given his recent announcement that the Peterson Proposal [park sale version] is now dead, and never would have worked in the first place: seems to me we ought to see the FAQs touting the scheme removed from the city website pretty quickly. Just for openers. I'll look later on today and see if it's still there.
Curm, I also don't get channel 17, but I wonder if they'll cancel the all Geiger all the time promotions as well. The mayor has all ready put his modified (recently change to no live questions on air call in show) in moth balls. Due to his weak performance one evening, lost his composure and fumbled some pretty basic questions, he has in the past been able to lie a little more comfortably in other adlib situations.Lost it that night. I guess the camera is more imposing to lying little matty than the whole City Council and live audience at Council meetings.
How much does the city make a year in advertising on channel 17, if it doesn't make money, maybe, we could have the gondola to nowhere, now have a place to go. Right by the station, and then geiger could pay all the bills for all the freee advertising we as taxpayer have given him.
jest wonderin,
My point is that if we sell the school land to private individuals or companies, we won't have land or buildings for schools should the inner city become re-established.
If Ogden is to flourish again it will only happen if we can revitalize our inner city. That will be home owners and more than likely those home owners will have children needing education. Where do you build schools if you sell off all our existing inner city schools to the private sector? We'll be left with two options, one buy private land possibly with eminent domain or two, convert our inner city parks to school property. Neither option has appeal.
We should think carefully about these old schools and think toward the future if we're going to have one.
Just thinkin:
That depends to some extent on the demographics of the population Ogden is hoping to attract downtown. If it's primarily empty nesters in mid career looking for the convenience of urban living, then the schools matter becomes much less important. If its a broader demographic including young families just starting out, it becomes more important. I suspect the city's target demographic for downtown is the first group, not the second... which is not to say, necessarily, that it will succeed in drawing that demographic.
mother, baseball, and apple pie -
Your question about channel 17 losing money gave me an idea. If it is losing money, maybe we could sell it to Chris Peterson!
Apologies also for my $9M vs $900,000 goof. I guess I shouldn't post before I had my decaf.
Options are a good thing especially when the alternatives could be both expensive and contentious for the city in the future.
Why doesn't the mayor discuss how much channel 17 is costing us rather than the golf course?
Seems to me it would make more sense to just pull the plug on channnel 17 to save money as it is truely a godfrey boongogle rather than a service to anyone, where as the residents actually enjoy and get something beneficial out of the golf course, exercise.
Og:
I don't think 17 is designed to make money. It is [allegedly] a community service channel, funded I think 50% by a cable TV fee all subscribers pay, and 50% by city tax funds. However it is funded, it seems to me to be very nearly worthless as a public service channel as presently operated.
It has become, first of all, the personal plaything of the Mayor's office, used to push his particular political agendas while denying air time to those who think differently. [Recall how he went on Channel 17 to oppose a school bonding issue and refused those who supported the issue time to respond.] Just another example of his weak grasp of what honor and ethics require of elected public officials. Not to mention the endless programing of Geiger pro-Peterson Plan interviews and the endless running of Ogden promo tapes touting the Peterson plan.
[Note to mayor: those capable of seeing Channel 17 already live here. We know the advantages of Ogden. Running promo films designed to introduce the city to those at trade conventions, etc. makes very little sense in other than political terms.]
Much of what other community channels do, this one does not. It does not air [even on a tape delayed basis] City Council meetings, or School Board Meetings. It should do both.
One thing it might do is, if this is possible, cooperate with the SE in producing a daily evening news show for Ogden. We live in the digital shadow of Salt Lake City TV news. Ogden gets very little coverage... we get covered if the goriest crime or car crash of the day happens here. We get some feel-good coverage [live coverage of the opening of the Salomon Center, for example]. And so on. A real local newscast, put together by the SE, might serve a real public interest and draw substantial viewers. [Care would have to be taken to insure its independence with respect to news judgment.]
But I have to say, I'd rather the city pull the plug and drop the cable company fee I pay now for Channel 17 than let it continue in its present sorry state. The Council should look into either making it over into something that delivers programing of real value to the community [and yes, a Mayor's call in show would be and should be part of that mix], or ending the embarrassment and cost of Channel 17 as it is now.
After reading the article on Sunday, I looked forward to reading the newest post on the forum to see if, perhaps, there would be more of an ounce of civility toward the mayor. As a Democrat who supported Garcia in 2003, but has since been turned off by the vitriol toward the mayor, I had hoped to find more conciliatory language on a forum that frequently complains about the state of political discourse in this city. Alas, this is not case (with some exceptions in the comments).
Why not see this as a great example of the democratic process? The mayor received an interesting proposal from a developer that certainly had some support from the community. After what seems to be careful scrutiny of the plan, and the consideration of public input, (you all call it a "Horse and Pony show," but how many urban mayors provide their constituents the opportunity to directly ask questions of them in a very public forum?) he decides to reject the offer.
Is he trying to better position himself for the election? Of course! That is why elections are the sine qua non of democratic politics; elections keep our government connected to the citizenry. But why should we deride his decision as crass politics rather than a genuine executive decision made in the best interest of the city and its citizens? If it is simply crass politics, then we have to believe that Godfrey is in dire political shape who needs a huge issue to swing the election in his favor.
This assumption leads to some important questions: First, was his approval rating really 40%? (where did that figure come from anyway?) My guess is that the real approval rating is not that low as most Ogdenites who will go to the polls don't have the hatred of Godfrey that many on this forum have for him. Second, if this was about the election, why make the announcement in July rather than September? Third, and most important, why is he even running for Mayor again? The gondola idea is dead. Clearly, he could make a better living for his family in the private sector. Maybe, just maybe, he actually cares about making this city a better place, but simply has the nerve to have ideas contrary to your own.
Finally, please let me say this. I do not agree with many of the Godfrey's policies, nor do I like his governing style (I'd love to be his PR guy -- he really needs one!) but in the 5 years I have lived here I have seen nothing but improvement. Is the Mayor solely responsible? Of course not. But if the alternative to the Mayor is represented by the cheapshots, stereotypes and cliched namecalling (A 'flip-flopper?!' Come on now people, that is language of a cheap punditry that knows very little about democratic politics) often used on this forum then I will have no choice but to vote for our Mayor again.
Here's hoping the tenor of this forum (and the overall political discourse of the city) can improve. As it stands it is as much a true forum of ideas and discourse as FoxNews is "news".
Thank you for reading.
You don't get out much, do you Brutus.
curm...I bet channel 17 is available in hotels where people from out of town do stay and the programs you refer to are then seen by people other than community members and they might not be as aware of the great things going on in our community.
Brutus:
First of all, the response has not been as one sided and as hostile as you suggest, I think. But I generally think you're right that many of the comments have been over the top if not downright mean-spirited. [Not all, please note, but many.] We should be pleased that the Mayor has [at last] made the right decision.
However, you've donned some thick rose-colored glasses in your summary of what led up to his decision, I think. Let me point out one example. You wrote: you all call it a "Horse and Pony show," but how many urban mayors provide their constituents the opportunity to directly ask questions of them in a very public forum?
I don't know if you attended any of his by-invitation-only dog an pony shows. I did and my wife did, and I talked to several people who attended others of them. Had they been conducted, as you imply they were, as a way for the Mayor to get feedback from "the people," your point would be a valid one. Sadly, they were not. They were pitch sessions for the plan. Those at the session I attended who prsumed to ask politely serious questions regarding the feasibility of the proposals were derided, occasionally hooted at by the Geigers attending, and sometimes were denigrated by the Mayor himself.
And you ask " how many urban mayors provide their constituents the opportunity to directly ask questions of them in a very public forum?" Fair question. Here's the answer: apparently, most of them. Most have some kind of Mayor's Call In Show [on public TV or on commercial radio stations] for exactly that purpose. So did Mayor Godfrey, to his credit... until recently when he eliminated call in questions entirely.
I agree that constant criticism of everything the Mayor does and says is unwarranted. He has made some good decisions and has done some good things for Ogden. [Repositioning the city as an outdoors hub when the "high tech center" concept flopped was a good move and has had good results.] Failing to give him credit for what he has done well, I agree, dilutes the credibility of criticisms of what he has done poorly.
But your examples are poorly chosen. On the Peterson proposal, please note that the Mayor now says the idea wasn't feasible in the first place. He pushed the plan, advocated it loudly, got the Chamber of Commerce to sign on, blocked alternate plans, and created a great deal of division in the city over a plan he now says couldn't have worked, was not feasible, from the git go. That does not sound to me like responsible government in action. It sounds like shooting from the hip and at great cost to the city. Had he done his research first [and thus concluded before he committed the city to pushing for the program, before he went on a full fledged sales campaign for it, before he signed on supporters in the community and derided as "naysayers" those who questioned the feasibility of the plan henow agrees was not feasible,] think how much better off the city would have been.
Yes, I'm glad he [finally] changed his mind. But you seem to be arguing that we ought to congratulate him for, after two years of behaving irresponsibly, deciding to stop behaving that way.
I'd like the commentary on the mayor to be more balanced than it is, on the whole. I hope we don't get too much crowing over his abandoning the sell-the-park-to-his-crony scheme. [I watched too many episodes of "Have Gun Will Travel" while growing up, I guess, and learned from Paladin: you don't crow when you win. You don't whine when you lose. It's the Code of the West....] But none of that requires us to overlook the sheer irresponsibility of his actions on this matter over the last two years.
It was never a feasible plan the Mayor now tells us. That was something he should have investigated before he created all this dissension an turmoil in the city. Not two years later.
Brutus, what a soft sweet sounding name!
You are a Democrat and offended that some have characterized your mayor as a 'flip flopper'?
Well, we wait breathlessly to read your response to Joe Biden calling the President of the United States 'Brain Dead'...while we are at war!
He's been vilified by you Democrats in a way that is shameful. Yet, you want us to beleive that we on this forum are beastly because we can plainly see this corrupt mayor's machinations?
"Get out more in public," is a good idea.
Just a Thought:
OK, granted. Hadn't considered that. Though I doubt many would agree that the chance that visitors to the city might stumble on Channel 17 when it had something, like the promo film, on that they'd watch justifies the cable fee I pay, or the taxes we spend on the channel as a whole.
Look, Just A Thought, running something like a "Welcome to Ogden: It's All Within Reach" half hour film for the benefit of city visitors might not be a bad idea at all. [Though perhaps convincing the major hotels that have their own cable TV systems to run it on one of their in-house channels would be a more effective idea.] But something like that could be part of the mix. But not enough by itself to justify the cost of the channel.
I think a properly run Community is or could be a very good thing for Ogden. And visitor information could certainly be part of the mix. But it would have to be better thought out than just running the trade show promotion film over and over, seems to me.
True Republican:
OK, let me see if I have this straight. Your argument is that what Brutus said in defense of Godfrey is invalid because Joe Biden called George Bush brain dead?
I'll take Non-sequitors for $200, Alex.
Well, Curmudgeon has answered you in his very fair-minded and civil manner. But, Brutus, NOT all posts on here are scornful of the mayor.
Why, the Geigers' and other FOM's post here regularly.
I don't know how long you've actually paid attention to Mr. Godfrey's reign. We have been doing so for a goodly time.
Most of us are horrified that this city has been held hostage for two years by this little egotistical bully's visions. His threats to give away our jewel to a would be developer is insane.
My personal opinion is that Matt wants to sell for a very nominal price the golf course and adjancent lands to Peterson. Then, Matt, Peterson and the other very close FOM's will turn around and sell them to a real developer, while they laugh and skip away arm in arm to the bank and the Bahamas.
IMHO Godfey and Cindy Sheehan are two of a kind...both publicity hungry, ego driven, amoral, and full of BS.
The only difference is that Matt dresses better and is prettier.
Now there, I said something nice about him.
I called the Hampton Inn, Marriott, and Holiday Inn Express.
None carry the LOCAL Ogden City Cable Channel 17.
Amazing what one can glean when we let our 'fingers do the walking'.
You're welcome.
Brutus,
Thanks for posting. Understand that my feeling for the mayor has gone from support (I had a yard sign for him the last time he ran) to unqualified loathing.
This was not by choice. It was a long, sorrowful process for me. His actions have been dishonest, irresponsible, and have shown great distain for public opinion. And in spite of the belief that Godfrey has changed his mind, I assure everyone, he has not. His stated change of opinion is only a ploy, and I suspect he’s spent most of today telling his supporters just that.
And I don’t hate the mayor. I am opposed to his policies and his ways of doing business. Learn the difference.
Brutus , judging by your drift, you reflect more, pop-eye's Brutus than the Roman.
Lets see, public forums for fielding questions? Carefull scrutiny of the plan? concideration of public input? And where did you get some sense of vitriol from Jesse Garcia? Is this Ed Allan, Bernie or potato nose? Just what hole have you been laying in? At no time was anything presented as a forum for gathering of public input, were that the case there would have been public Q & A sessions,instead we got this, "if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them in private, after the presentation."
And dear Brutus, the term is dog and pony shows, these things resembled an Amway convention, or 19th century medicine show, "one swig can cure just about anything that ails you". Drink the mayors kool-aid. Do we also have to point out to you that the mayor took over all these dog and pony shows, feeling Peterson lacked the skills required to bold face lie to a gathering of interested on lookers?
Carefull scutiny of the plan, thats a good one. I have to assume you did not attend the community meetings during the development of the Mt.Ogden community PLAN. It was the public that provided the scrutiny, and concluded more than a year ago that this was nothing more than a BULLSHIT LAND GRAB, with LYING LITTLE MATTY at the controls.
As for Mr. Garcia, it was the mayor and his folks that launched an ill advised unsubstaciated personal attack on him. This would appear to have been a defensive stratagy on their part. They it seems, needed cover for covering up sexual harrasment charges, and porn, on one of the mayors most valuable henchmen.
All that and more, but I have to go get my latest GRAMA and don't have time.
Brutus, you needent be so dumb and naive, a little energy and thought applied can aid you in cominng out of, what appears to be your perpetual state of ignorant bliss.
Curm,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. First, know that I have donned rose-colored glasses purposefully -- I figured a little naivete would be a stark contrast with the rest of the posts and perhaps would help get my point across -- and judging by your response, it has.
Yes, I went to one of the public forums, and while I admit that Godfrey did get a bit irritated in the end (again, he really needs some PR help), quite frankly I thought that many questioners challenging the plan were as rude as the mayors supporters. Goes to show how similar events can be viewed differently...thank goodness for social science.
Here is my main question (and I ask it not to argue or challenge, but because I really don't know the answer): How else should the mayor have proceeded here? For example: If he did feasibility studies, wouldn't we be screaming about "secret Gondola studies?" How much was really lost by the pursuit of this idea? While it created turmoil, I seem to remember plenty of dissension in 2003, pre-Gondola.
I guess I simply don't think that the pursuit of this idea was as fruitless and disingenuous as many seem to think. (But hey, maybe I'm wrong -- I have certainly been wrong before). Godfrey received an a fascinating proposal (a proposal that many community members thought was a good idea) and went for it. In the end he realized he was wrong. Should it have taken two years? Maybe not, but democracy is slow, messy, and nasty, and often the wrong decision is made (ie Iraq). Let's not "congratulate" the mayor, rather, let's just give him a little credit for not fully investing the city in a bad proposal.
Brutus, every once in a while we delve into Music, I recommend that you seek out these two songs, they may enlighten you further.
"Dumb all over" by Frank Zappa (You are what you is)
"Give me some truth" by John Lennon (Imagine)
One more thing Brutus, you state that you like neither the mayors style or his policies, in fact that says you don't like him being mayor. Then you go on to say that because of comments on this blog you will be forced to vote for him. What may I ask, does that make you?
Thanks for all your responses. Though I don't appreciate being called dumb, or accused of living in a hole, or of not having a life, I do appreciate the passion you all have in the political process.
Those who want the mayor defeated -- you now see what your challenge is. You see, most voters will be just like my little naive self. They will simply ask the famous question posed by Reagan (and later Clinton): are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? My guess is that most voters will look at the city (not to mention their home values if they are homeowners) answer a resounding YES to that question.
These voters will not be persuaded by arguments that Godfrey tried to sell the "Crown Jewel." They will not be swayed by accounts of Godfey's Napoleonic (or is Guilianic) governing style. No, they will simply look results.
Is this right? Of course not. But it is a fact that voters tend to vote retrospectively not prospectively. They will not be persuaded by all the evil stuff that Godfrey may do, given that they can know go a decent movie theatre in Downtown Ogden.
You (Curm especially) have begun to persuade me about the mayor's shortcomings. If he is really as bad for this city as many of you seem to think, I hope you find an effective way to persuade everyone else.
Brutus makes a good point (and he quotes Reagan. Everyone is quoting Reagan. Well enough. If I'm a political basher, how does one account for the fact that I freely admit I loved that guy?)
Anyway, I personally feel the city is a lot worse off. Some simpletons may not agree.
For one thing, $100 million in debt can buy a lot of "feel good." Maybe borrow and spend and vote buying is alive and well in Ogden. We will see how smart the voters are. Perhaps we can help them better understand the situation we are in.
All these godfreyites.
Are you ok with the 5,000.000.00 law suit? are you ok with the 95,000,000.00 debt? are you ok with the firing of police officer Jones and the list goes on and on. Tell me, or justify to me how all that is ok and we should trust him again for a third term.
Thank you, Danny, for bringing up the massive debt we have upon our bent backs.
And, what will the junction end up costing us when all the receipts are in? Not to mention that bonding of 21 plus million!
Looks like Curm has a new friend.
I'm beginning to think Brutus is a shill of the Godfrey FOM's. His writing style is more articulate and less scatter-shot than bobby's...not as self-serving as Curt's, but maybe Bernie's?
Anyway, he may be taking up space here...because he can! Sincere? Insincere?
I vote insincere.
Hey..on two different threads, I've asked John Gullo to tell us his position about the Gondola and sale of the parklands.
One may think those are moot questions. Since we all know about the mayor's dissembling...these are not moot questions. I asked him about these when he first made his replies on here.
Gullo didn't give his opinion then...so, John, do you beleive the mayor has had an epiphany, or like the rattlesnake coiled to strike, we best watch our step?
If a little debt bugs you, then this should really freak you out:
http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/NatDebt.htm
Sharon:
Excellent work on calling hotels. I woould expect HI Express to have it, but Marriot surprises me. Nice work.
Of course, that doesn't deal with the question of whether the larger hotels... the ones that will [presumably] be housing all those visitors flocking the Salomon Center, and coming to Ogden to attend conventions in the newly-attractive convention center [one of the rationales for the Salomon center, recall, making Ogden more attractive for small conventions and business meetings]... should be carrying Channel 17 on their in-house channels. [Most of them have satellite direct TV links, and the Ogden channel is not available that way, I think.] Or at least some half hour introduction to Ogden and what there is to do here. Call it "Welcome to Ogden: It's All Within Reach."
But nice telephone sleuthing, Sharon.
Thank you soooo much, Curm.
One would think the nicer hotels that I did call would have Ch17 if any were to carry it.
Well...we won't have to erect another hotel now, will we? One with a 2nd story pass-thru for the gondola?
Having a little intro to Ogden for the hotels could be done by (drum roll pls)....RUPERT the PRODUCER.
He seems to be fixated on me, Dan S. and some others...wonder if we could 'star' in it?
Brutus, a couple of points. First of all, enjoyed reading your posts. Second, if, in fact that mayor has been convinced by the "voice of the people" that would be great. He probably has been, finally. And I for one am glad to see it. But I wonder why it took him so long to come to this conclusion. Why did he spend city $ to promote a project that he himself - not Peterson - originated? (Peterson was quoted in the SL Trib many months ago that it was Godfrey who approached him about developing his land, rather than giving it to the forest service in a land swap for some land in Nevada.) As Curm wondered in an earlier post, why didn't Godfrey do the research first, before trying to sell everyone on the project.
As for your election anaylsis, sadly for me, I think you are probably correct. Godfrey has removed the main negative for him from the upcoming campaign and as he said in Sunday's SE, maybe now many gondola opposers will vote for him. As you indicate, the average Ogden voter is not your average WCF reader. Whether that is a good thing or not, I'm not sure.
NOT good.
Brutus:
Ah, thanks for the reply. Much to discuss. First, let me clear up a misconception. [I should have been clearer in my first post. Sorry.] You wrote:
Yes, I went to one of the public forums, and while I admit that Godfrey did get a bit irritated in the end (again, he really needs some PR help), quite frankly I thought that many questioners challenging the plan were as rude as the mayors supporters. Goes to show how similar events can be viewed differently...thank goodness for social science.
OK, no argument. Some of the questions in the session I attended were clearly hostile and rudely put. My point was that even questions that were politely put which questioned the feasibility of the plan were not well dealt with, and sometimes drew derision from the Mayor. At the session I attended, he didn't seem to distinguish much between the two kinds of questions. I didn't mind him replying to rudeness with an edge [though he might have been more effective if he had not]. I did mind his replying to what I thought were fair questions politely put with an edge... and in no way reigning in hooting by the Geiger chorus on occasion. But I agree, I didn't make that as clear as I should have.
OK, now to more substantive stuff. You asked: Here is my main question (and I ask it not to argue or challenge, but because I really don't know the answer): How else should the mayor have proceeded here?
Fair question. Here's how I think a prudent mayor would have/should have handled the suggestion the Mayor says Peterson brought to him:
"Wow. That's some proposal. And have to tell you, Chris, I like the concept. It could I think be a really good thing for Ogden. But it will create a lot of controversy. And before I can do anything with it, even present it as a possibility, you'll have to provide the city with a lot of information first: is it feasible? How many houses of the kind you want to build can actually be built on the land you want? A lot of it is in slope. How will that affect what you want to do? I need to see feasibility studies by reputable firms, on all aspects of the whole plan before I can endorse it or recommend it to the Council or anyone else. I'll need to see, Chris, up front, the same things investment bankers would need to see if you were going to them for the cash instead of to the city. Put those in front of me, hard and fast numbers, and I'll then have the planning staff look them over, and if they agree it all adds up, I'll have what I need to make some kind of proposal to the Council and Planning Commission. But this will stir up a hornets nest, so I need to be loaded for bear before I even think of asking the city to go down this road.
"Interesting concept, but way too early for me to say anything other than.... interesting concept. Thanks for the lunch. Let me know when you have the specifics -- the feasibility studies, the market analyses, and so on ---ready to look at."
Something like that. What happened instead, I think, is the Mayor bought the concept before he [or Peterson] did the necessary spade work. Anyway, you asked how it might have been handled otherwise. That's how, or so it seems to me.
Now, about the election. From your second new post, you wrote:
Those who want the mayor defeated -- you now see what your challenge is. You see, most voters ... will simply ask the famous question posed by Reagan (and later Clinton): are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? My guess is that most voters will look at the city (not to mention their home values if they are homeowners) answer a resounding YES....
These voters will not be persuaded by arguments that Godfrey tried to sell the "Crown Jewel." They will not be swayed by accounts of Godfey's Napoleonic (or is Guilianic) governing style. No, they will simply look results.
Is this right? Of course not. But it is a fact that voters tend to vote retrospectively not prospectively. They will not be persuaded by all the evil stuff that Godfrey may do, given that they can know go a decent movie theatre in Downtown Ogden.
OK, a couple of issues here. I suspect, along with Cato above, you are right that many voters [I'm not sure it's most] will vote on past performance, not prospective performance. And that's something his opponents will have to address.
I think they can. There is enough doubtful in his past performance [not just the Peterson matter] to raise, for me, serious questions about whether he is the right man to take Ogden further down the road it needs to go over the next four years. The two matters [past/future] may not be as distinct in voters minds as you suggest. It will be up to candidates to make this case to the voters. If they can't, he'll probably win re-election. You doubt the case can be made, it seems. I think it can. We'll just have to await the outcome on this one.
As for his style.... Well, that might not ordinarly be too much of a problem, unless that style gets in the way of doing the city's business. And I think we can show that where Godfrey is concerned, it has, and will continue to. He does not play well with others, and that is not good for Ogden. Lots of examples, but just to mention one to illustrate the point: his administration's inexplicable refusal to inform the Council, when it asked who was actually buying the Bootjack property. When Mayor/Council communications break down that badly... and in this instance the fault lies I think totally on the administrative side... efficient city government becomes very difficult if not impossible. So when "style" matters get to the point where they interfere with good governance, they become not merely style questions, but substantive questions. Or so it seems to me.
Someone else above [I forget who... possibly you, I can't recall at the moment] said his style can be abrasive, but he's a "make it happen" kinda guy and people like that. I'd agree... so long as what the "make it happen kinda guy" is trying to make happen is good for the city. The danger is, a "full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes" mayor can lead the city unthinkingly in an unwise direction. Which I think he did, precipitously, in the Peterson Proposal matter.
Thanks again for the reply. Enjoyed the conversation.
Oh, good lord, curm.
Your first paragraphs were ok...what Godfrey should've said. He also should've said he'd present the whole 'concept' to the city!
Not the dog and pony shows...but the concept the way Peterson wanted it with paid for studies: slopes, habitat presevation, infrastructure, etc that Peterson would pay for!
He could have had lunch, belched and walked away....that would have been even better.
Peterson should go to Huntsville, Morgan, Peterson, Wanship, Coalville or even St George (there's still land there for a gated community) and stop talking about the destroying the very lure that makes Ogden unique!
Neil Hansen should ask this mayor: "What's in it for you and your FOM's"? We know there is a payoff.
Curm...you are often taken to task on here for your "I can see every angle and argument". It's tiresome. Make a point and move on.
Brutus and Curm:
In answer to the question of how the mayor should have treated the Peterson proposal, I would add this: The proposal did not originate with Peterson alone. We have enough of a paper trail to know that the mayor and Peterson have been working together on gondola schemes since spring of 2000, only a few months after the mayor first took office. We'll probably never know the details of their private discussions over the years, but it's quite possible that Peterson's purchase of the Malan's Basin property was actually Godfrey's idea, or at least, that Godfrey promised to support the rest of the scheme before Peterson agreed to buy the property.
So while Curm's answer to Brutus was great for the hypothetical scenario where the scheme was entirely Peterson's idea, my answer would have been different. Given that the gondola has been one of the mayor's priorities from day one, the right way for him to handle this issue would have been to bring it up during his original campaign for mayor. He should have told the voters that he intended to get a gondola built on Mt. Ogden one way or another, even if it involved sacrifices such as pulling Taylor Canyon from the land exchange or selling some or all of the city's foothill park land. Then if the voters elected him, he would have a mandate to move forward with those plans. Instead, he kept his agenda quiet during not one but two elections seasons. And now he's downplaying it again, because he knows it's too controversial to win him votes. That's the kind of dishonesty that voters should now hold him accountable for.
Curm,
That was an excellent alternative scenario. Wiser minds are willing to seek out and listen to the viewpoints of many with the expertise to elaborate on the limitations of a given proposal. This non-proposal was saddled with so many natural limitations. Buildable acreage within the open space, an already cramped golf course, roadless access to Malan's Basin, lack of beginner/intermediate ski-able acreage, snow quality on the west face, runoff drainage down Waterfall Canyon,...the list goes on without even touching on the utterly inappropriate and corny idea of using a gondola system to link downtown to the foothill. The mayor was lucky enough to use the excuse of development limitations to back away from such a nonsensical use of gondola technology. The man attempted to be developer, financier, and self appointed expert while holding the community hostage for 2 years. That is something that goes beyond simple forgiveness. It clearly shows a lack of leadership.
I'll add that the limitations of this particular development package really do not require an expert to evaluate most of it. None of us are, but we have been damn willing here to look at the data and facts. There have been no smoke and mirrors while adding up acreage, viewing slope overlays, studying up a little on gondola systems, researching online TOD and streetcars. This is all public access data and has always been available to LO, the mayor, Geigers, Peterson, all of whom chose to ignore all advice and belittle others who chose to seek out real info. Only a fool would twist the data so blindly in the face of so much well-founded concern.
Dan and My Opinion:
Dan: you're right, my answer was premised on the assumption that the mayor's version [Peterson came to him with the idea after Snow Basin said in no uncertain terms "no" to a gondola link to the city] was accurate. That was I thought the question Brutus raised: given that scenario, how should it have been handled by a mayor? And that's what I answered.
My Opinion: That Godfrey should have said he'd present the whole proposal... feasibility studies, market studies, etc to the Council... ah, I kind of think that's what I did say. I think we're on the same page on this. [Shocking, isn't it?]
To Everyone Out There,
I still don't think you get it.
This wasn't about an urban gondola, this wasn't about a mountain gondola and this wasn't about Malan Basin.
These was all a smoke screens for the real purpose. That being to get our open space and golf course for development.
Nothing else.
You can talk until you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that none of the three above mentioned projects have any financial legs and they will never be built, by anyone (Peterson or anyone). They don't work, they will never work and you can't make them even pay for themselves!
This was smoke and the more that comes out, the more clear that becomes. Godfrey wasn't nieve, Godfrey was in it from the start. He was in it for the money and he still in it for the money.
Why else is he trying to get re-elected and why is he still trying to get the slope restrictions lifted or why is he still manipulating the Mt. Ogden Community Plan to accomodate this development option or pushing for a wide open mixed use ordinance (including allowing for a MU at the top of 36th Street). Wake up he's still trying to pull it off.
Use your heads, a vote for Godfrey is just a vote for someone that is trying to get rich off the people of Ogden.
He's not nieve, you guys are.
Did Amy Wicks EVER get a reply to her question asking Godfrey how much city money has been spent on gondola promotion?
That's rhetorical, BTW.
I would like to mention two more negatives regarding Mayor Godfrey that I don't think have been adequately addressed in previous posts.
1. He adopted the gondola as an idée fixe a long time ago, as Dan S. has suggested, and I have it from a reliable, politically-connected source that he mentioned it in damn near every city meeting, public or private. Certainly his public statements and continually-running Dog and Pony Show support the version of events my source presented. There is a lot more to being Mayor of a midsize American city than promoting a hopped-up amusement park ride. This alone suggests a grave misjudgement.
2. His relationship with Weber State University has been poisonous and adversarial. You can blame WSU administration for some of this, but I think his public record (e.g. the April 2007 session with WSU students) is quite clear.
WSU is one of the largest employers in the county and has the potential to drive economic development. The city and WSU are natural partners, yet no one outside a select circle of FOMs seems to be able to make common cause with the Mayor. I find this deeply troubling.
There are perhaps dozens of reasons not to vote for Mayor Godfrey's re-election. I'm just pointing out two I've not yet seen in this thread.
You're just a naysayer, Ogdenlover.
People who ask city government reasonable questions about policies and expenditures are naysayers. That's the difference between a republic and a democracy.
Excellent points Monotreme.
There are so many reasons NOT to vote for Godfrey!
Whoever is our new mayor has to be someone who understands how gov't works! Someone who understands the intricacies of running a laarge city and working with the legislature. Someone who understands how to untangle the financial mess Godfrey will leave for the new mayor. Someone who is honest, is resolute, has integrity, and that's not a joke!
Someone who can and does understand the true needs of the city and will address them. Someone who will get busy making the infrastructure safe. Someone who has a proven record of service.
The job of mayor is not for the uninitiated, the clueless, or the inexperienced.
Godfrey has woven a maze of deceit at every turn. One wonders if Houdini could extricate himself from this octupus' tentacles before drowning.
Neil Hansen is already moving forward on the grave issues that concern Ogden's citizens.
He's doing it with personal consultations with those most affected.
The uniniated don't even know where to start.
Let's put our vote where it counts.
Vote for Mayor Neil Hansen....Good for Ogden!
Next thing ya know Godfrey will flip flopping again by sucking up to Cops.
Us cops won't forget, what the soon ex-mayor called us, "a bunch of weiner’s". He can wein his way back to the ghetto, where he belongs and created.
This is why cops are backing Neil Hansen for Mayor. He’s fought for us and we’ll fight for him.
By the way the only cop I know that may consider backing godfrey is chief senator coward that fires cops for speaking thier minds.
Don't forget Matt Jones and his family.
Monotreme...
Careful. Remember, the Mayor is a Naysayer now too.... [grin].
Lets just hope we have other options for Mayor besides Godfrey and Hansen. If Hansen makes it just because folks dislike Godfrey so much that is also a shame. Lets get someone who is balanced and fair and reaches to all sides and parts of our community. I think Hansen is too far to the other extreme and will try and stop Ogden's growth and progress. Lets just hope we have some real good choices.
give us a choice-
Yes, I agree, it would be nice to have other choices. Isn't the filing deadline for candidacy fastly approaching? Anybody know the official date?
Jill:
This coming Monday is the final day to file.
To "wake up"
Thank you for the reality check. I concur with you that some people here tie themselves into knots to appear thoughtful. It was nice to hear from you, just the truth.
As far as Niel Hansen, he would be good, and better than Matt, but I believe he will not be the only good alternative.
Jill, if you know somebody who wants to run for council or mayor,
see my post from July 08, 2007 5:50 PM (earlier in this thread, above.) You fill out a form and pay $25. It's that easy.
Lots of follow-ups on the golf course about-face in today's news.
The trib has an excellent article by our old friend Cathy McKitrick, featuring a number of excellent quotes from Councilwoman Wicks. Reading this article reminds me again what a great loss it was to Ogden when McKitrick left the Standard-Examiner.
But ace reporter Schwebke has also done a good job today, with this follow-up article on more reactions to Godfrey's announcement. No surprises, really. The Chamber of Commerce, the realtors, and Curt Geiger are all stil hoping the gondola will be built, somehow.
One caveat on the S-E article. Smart Growth Ogden spokesperson Mary Hall is paraphrased saying that she applauds the decision not to sell "the golf course and adjoining city property." That's a quote from the article but not a direct quote from Hall. I don't know what her exact words were, but I suspect that Schwebke is confused here. The adjoining 60 acres are very important to many of us who care about Ogden's foothill trails and open space. But as far as I can tell from the news reports, Godfrey has made absolutely no promises not to sell those 60 acres. (In this regard, Rudi's headline and some of the earlier posts on this thread may also be somewhat misleading.)
There's also a poll on the Standard-Examiner web site asking whether we agree with the decision not to sell the golf course.
Just a cusory reading of the SE this morning confims what almost all of us have been saying:
Godfrey has no intention of giving up his visions. His 'medium' Geiger is holding seances to ressurect this dreeeeeam and hopefully, inject some life into Peterson.
Beware...
NEVER TRUST...VERIFY
Curm, after reading this mornings new article,(this guys going to be all over the paper,incumbancy) I'd draw two conclusions. His buddies show no real outrage, after being tossed under the bus. And after two years of rabbid advocacy(I've always believed this to be of pinnoccio's doing from the outset.)how difficult would it be for a guy with zero integrety( some thing constantly manifested) to change his mind, immediately after winning the election?
It's rather obvious, including the constant stream of letters to the editor from know supporters of this land theft, that this is a carefully orchestrated, get re-elected at any cost strategy, and nothing more. Including Bernie's Brutus imatation, Envision Ogden reconnaissance.
Dan S.,
Do you have a copy of the Mount Ogden Community plan? Does somebody want to post it here so we can review it before the meeting on the 17th?
Never mind.
The city recorder will get me a copy next week.
"It's a huge chunk of our open space and also provides access to the mountain for our residents," Amy Wicks said. "We need to protect it."
OK then Amy. Protect it. What are you waiting for? Pass the Jeske ordinance. Stop waiting for the mayor to propose it.
Also, I note the SLTrib used the term "sky ride" to refer to the gondola. Where have we heard that before? It appears there are WCF readers at the Trib as well.
David,
A draft of the Mt. Ogden Community Plan is posted on the city's web site and linked from the Smart Growth web site. However, the draft appears to pre-date the minor revisions that the Planning Commission made before they passed it on to the Council.
Post a Comment